Approximately 3.5% of the total $100 billion spent on dental care in the United States in 2008 was for traditional surgical removal of third molars (i.e. “wisdom teeth” extractions), including the associated costs of imaging, sedation, and resulting complications. Traditional surgical removal of third molars, however, is a highly invasive, painful, and complication-ridden procedure. Further, third molar extraction represents the only procedure in the United States and Europe where it is considered “normal” to subject patients of any age group to such a highly invasive prophylactic surgery that carries significant lifelong risks for the excision of asymptotic or non-pathologic tissue. Dental practitioners (e.g. general dentists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons) have been trained to remove children's wisdom teeth (third molars) before the wisdom teeth cause problems, but this surgery carries significant pain, risks and costs.
The main problem associated with third molar tooth extractions—aside from the pain inflicted—is the serious risk of complications associated with such an invasive procedure. Each year “more than 11 million patient days of ‘standard discomfort or disability’—pain, swelling, bruising, and malaise—result post-operatively, and more than 11,000 people suffer permanent paraesthesia—numbness of the lip, tongue, and cheek—as a consequence of nerve injury during the surgery. At least two thirds of these extractions, associated costs, and injuries are unnecessary, constituting a silent epidemic of iatrogenic injury that afflicts tens of thousands of people with lifelong discomfort and disability.”
If you interview people under the age of 40 and ask them what has been the most invasive surgical procedure they have personally experienced (that is not trauma related), there is a greater than 90% chance that it will be their “wisdom teeth” extraction. The current standard of care in America for “managing” third molars (e.g. “wisdom teeth”) in adolescents and young adults is generally to have all four third molars extracted once they are formed, unless it is absolutely clear that these teeth will erupt normally. General dentists and oral surgeons alike are complicit in their belief that third molars generally should be extracted because not all will erupt normally, thus causing future pathology.
Each year, an estimated 10 million third molar tooth extractions account for over 92% of all teeth extracted for patients under the age of 40. This represents surgery on approximately 5 million people each year at an estimated cost of over $2.5 billion for third molar extraction fees alone in the United States. When IV sedation fees, X-ray imaging expenses, post-op medications, and unplanned post-operative expenses associated with treating complications are added in, the true United States health care cost is estimated to be well over $3.5 billion. In addition to fee inflation, it has been shown that “upcoding” of wisdom teeth extraction (i.e. using an insurance code for payment of a higher fee than is clinically justified) has become an increasing problem for insurers. Insurance claim patterns clearly show that this procedure is largely treated as an elective procedure. The average annual income per oral surgeon has been estimated to be approximately $500,000 for third molar extraction fees alone. Insurance companies have historically reported that reimbursement for third molar extractions has been the highest reimbursed surgical procedure—even higher than hysterectomies in years when medical insurance used to pay for both procedures.
The market demographics and associated expenses are compelling. Over 77% of children at age 6 have all four third molar tooth buds radiographically detectable on routine panographic X-rays (a type of volume scan). Over 90% of all teenagers in the United States have at least one third molar that will fully form. A typical cost for an oral surgeon to remove all four third molars on a teenager is generally $2,000 to $2,500 per patient once the teeth have at least partially formed—but before they have erupted—including the cost of IV sedation, consultations, and X-ray imaging costs.
There has been considerable controversy for the past fifty years regarding prophylactic extraction of third molars. A number of leading authorities have objectively tried to demonstrate that prophylactic extraction is a waste of healthcare dollars, citing studies that indicate there is no objective scientific evidence for such a procedure, while other groups vigorously argue that prophylactic extraction in the teens and early adult years greatly eliminates more serious problems later in life and is worth the cost and risk.
An important question to ask is, “What happens if no prophylactic third molar extractions occur?” For instance, “as many as 22% of all emergency department visits” at a United States military support facility were related to dental problems, most of which were third-molar specific. In third-world countries, where prophylactic extraction of wisdom teeth is simply not performed, a high percentage of patients will present with acute infections, decay, gum disease and other problems later in life. In Jordan—where prophylactic extraction is not performed—46% of adult patients had pathology (decay, infection, bone loss, etc.) detectable on their third molars on routine X-rays and volume scans. Numerous studies show that third molars are hard to clean, generally do not erupt fully, and are the single most-likely teeth to have problems associated with them.
Routine panographic X-rays of adults taken during a random two-week period are shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. These X-rays show the examples of the range of problems that adult patients experience when they have third molars that are not extracted at an early age, including advanced decay and gum infections. For example, FIG. 1 shows a 48-year-old patient with both upper third molars present. There is a gum infection around both third molars that has caused 90% of the bone on the distal side of the second molars to be destroyed. In order to save the first molars, extraction of the second and third molars on the upper-arch will be necessary. FIG. 2 shows another example in which a 36-year-old patient has all four third molars present. The upper third molars are hyper-erupting because they have no opposing teeth to occlude against. They will eventually need to be extracted. The lower third molars are horizontally impacted and show no signs of infection, but if they become infected, then the patient will almost certainly loose the adjacent second molars because of the bone damage that will occur.
The problem all practitioners face is that it is practically impossible to tell in advance which impacted wisdom teeth will ultimately cause future pathology. The reality is that most wisdom teeth (well over 50%) are surgically extracted prophylactically with no real knowledge that they will actually cause future pathology.
If pathology appears in patients over the age of 40, however, the stakes are much different. According to two prospective studies in the United States, in 1997 10.5% and in 2002 17.3% of patients requiring third molar extractions were over the age of 40. If a patient is presenting later in life to have one or more third molars extracted, it is because active pathology has been diagnosed, making surgery no longer elective. The attendant complication rates are not just higher, but these patients were categorized as “very high risk patients” for surgery. These studies concluded, “[t]he risk to patients and to the profession can be dramatically reduced by considering early removal of abnormal third molars” and “based on our experience, we propose extraction of third molars during adolescence when the X-ray indicates normal eruption cannot be expected due to lack of space or an abnormal position.”
The occurrence of post-operative complications is generally considered to be over 15% by most independent researchers. For instance, the formation of long-term periodontal pockets on the distal surfaces of second molars that results in gum disease, infection, and eventual second molar tooth loss is estimated to be over 10% due to the damage and poor bone morphology that result from third molar extraction surgery. The incidence of post-operative infections and “dry sockets” is generally accepted to be over 15%. Temporary paraesthesia due to damage to the mandibular nerve or the lingual nerve is over 10%, with residual permanent numbness of the lip or tongue present in approximately 1.5% of all patients. Recently, it has been concluded that approximately 23% of all cases of long-term Temporomandibular Joint (“TMJ”) dysfunction and chronic joint pain are attributable to third molar extraction surgeries.
Malpractice claims against dental practitioners relating to third molar extractions are at an all time high. Litigation for residual TMJ problems is increasing; in 2002 a North Carolina jury awarded $5 million in damages to a patient with TMJ pain following third molar extractions. The incidence of litigation over permanent numbness of the lip has dramatically increased in recent years. Malpractice claims with resulting payouts have been reported to be as high as two-thirds of all claims made against dental practitioners when nerve damage is involved.
If the wisdom teeth are not extracted in adolescence, the roots will fully form, making future extraction difficult and dramatically increasing the incidence of serious complications if surgery should later be required. The damage induced by long-standing, chronic infections in adults may necessitate the extraction not only of the third molars when they become symptomatic, but also of the adjacent second molars. Additional complications include the reduced healing response of adults as compared to adolescents, and the economic hardship induced by having to miss work. Many references indicate that prophylactic extraction of third molars in teens and young adults—in spite of the possibility of lifelong complications such as nerve damage—is justified to avoid the non-elective third molar extraction in adults over the age of 30.
Complications can be severe, even requiring hospitalization when teeth have been extracted on an out-patient basis. There have even been reports of patients who died as a direct result of wisdom tooth extractions.
As an example, FIG. 3 is an X-ray showing a 9-year-old patient with four third molar tooth buds present; three of them are in very early stages of enamel formation. The lower right third molar tooth bud does not have enamel formed yet, but will shortly. This X-ray shows an example of the early stages in which the tiny third molar tooth buds begin to form, begin to develop enamel, and finally begin to develop roots. Early signs of problems are almost always clearly evident by the time a patient is a teenager.
Once the tooth starts to form, the tooth bud starts to become encased in bone and appears to be “pushed down” into the mandible and maxilla as the child's jaw bone grows out and around the tooth bud with age. Future surgical access becomes far more invasive as the bone encases the forming third molar. Given the basic physiology involved, early intervention is the only approach that will eliminate the complications and high costs associated with extraction of fully formed third molars later in life.
The idea of prophylactic third molar tooth bud removal is not new. In 1936, Dr. Henry supported the surgical enucleation of tooth buds, and it was again supported in the mid 70s by several practitioners using somewhat invasive surgical techniques to physically access the tooth buds and mechanically cut them out. In 1979, Drs. Gordon and Laskin used cryoprobes to enucleate third molar tooth buds in dogs. However, at the NIH Conference On Third Molars in 1979 it was concluded that “[a]though there are cogent reasons for early removal of third molars, the group felt that the suggested practice of enucleation of third molar tooth buds, based on predictive studies at age 7 to 9, is not currently acceptable.” (National Institutes of Health—Removal Of Third Molars Consensus Development Conference Statement—1979.)
Early removal of partially formed third molars (sometimes referred to as a “germectomy”) where the enamel of the crown has completely formed but less than one-third of the root length has formed, is demonstrated to be somewhat less invasive and carries no demonstrated long-term complications or risks associated with early-stage surgery. However, it is still highly invasive and generally requires IV sedation of the teenage patient. The American Association of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon's White Paper On Third Molar Data references five studies involving over 1,100 germectomies with not a single case of a long-term complication (nerve injury, etc.) associated with the surgery. Further, since the germectomies were carried out on teenagers, there were no economic hardships induced by missing work. The White Paper understates the obvious conclusions associated with early intervention: “It does appear that early third molar removal may be associated with a lower incidence of morbidity and also less economic hardship from time off work for the patient.” However, it can also be concluded that there was a tremendous conflict of interest because this paper was written by oral surgeons. To date there is still no measurable shift by dental practitioners to change the way in which third molars are screened, diagnosed, and extracted (i.e. early extraction), indicating that there is a need to fundamentally change the way this condition is being surgically managed.
There are a number of existing alternative technical approaches that can be considered for prophylactic enucleation of third molar tooth buds before the crown or root begins formation in children age 6 to 10. These technical approaches include ablation procedures using different types of ablation means. Exemplary ablation procedures include microwave ablation, radio frequency ablation, irreversible electroporation, electrosurge tissue ablation (rats), cryoablation (dogs), laser ablation (dogs), and the use of a scalpel (humans). All but the first three ablation procedures have significant limitations due to being highly invasive, high in cost, requiring cumbersome equipment, or due to the limited means of mechanical access in the oral cavity. Nor do these ablation procedures offer the potential for real-time feedback control to contain collateral tissue damage. To date, the only documented trial of any form of tooth bud ablation procedure utilizing ablation technology that is currently used in mainstream medicine is cryoablation (although preliminary animal trials have been completed using electrosurgical power and lasers).
The article entitled “Selectively Preventing Development Of Third Molars In Rats Using Electrosurgical Energy” by Silvestri et al. describes a pilot study that tests the hypothesis that third molars can be selectively prevented from developing. To test the hypothesis, a study was conducted in which thirty-three neonate rats received electrosurgical energy to the mucosal surfaces of one of their maxillary tuberosities. In this study, guides (insulating plastic positioning devices that housed the electrosurgical probes) were used. The guides were fabricated using the mouths of euthanized rat pups of the same age as the rats that were to be treated as a mold for creating the guides. Then, the electrosurgical probe placed so that its stainless steel tip extended less than 1.0 mm beyond the plastic positioning device to ensure contact with the external surface of the oral mucosa of the maxillary tuberosity. Finally, when in position, the rat pups received a single, unilateral, momentary pulse of monopolar electrosurgical energy to the external surface of the gum tissue of their maxillary tuberosity regions. It should be emphasized that this surface application of electrosurgical energy acted first to unnecessarily kill the overlying gum tissue, then bore a hole through the gum tissue, and otherwise damage not only the tooth buds, but other nearby tissue. The rats were cared for, but after the experimental period, were euthanized to determine the effectiveness of the procedure. The results were that ten rats showed no intra-oral or radiographic evidence of third molar development (and most of these rats subsequently developed palatal deformities), and six developed smaller-than-normal third molars. The conclusion was that maxillary third molars could be selectively prevented from developing in rat pups at or near the time of tooth bud initiation. It was recognized, however, that electrosurgical energy was too powerful and uncontrollable to reliably confine its damage to only the tooth-forming tissues.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,688,118 to Hayka et al. (the “Hayka reference”) discloses image, sound, and feeling simulation system for dentistry. The system described in the Hayka reference can be thought of as a virtual system that may be used for implanting teeth. Such a virtual system connects the patient to the implant hand piece (i.e. “the drill”). Using three-dimensional scans on a display, the operator theoretically can guide movement of the drill bit relative to the patient for example, to allow the operator to guide the drill bit into the bone and place the implant. The Hayka reference includes a dental hand piece having a drill for drilling a cavity in a tooth, the drill having a drilling end; a first three-dimensional sensor attached to the dental hand piece, the first three-dimensional sensor providing the system with position and orientation in space of at least the drill; and a data processing and display unit for simulating at least the drilling end of the drill. Other patents and published patent applications that address aspects of virtual dentistry include U.S. Pat. No. 8,221,121 to Berckmans, III et al., U.S. Pat. No. 8,013,853 to Douglas, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,812,815 to Banerjee, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,457,443 to Persky, U.S. Pat. No. 7,249,952 to Ranta, et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100316974 to Yau, et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100311028 to Bell, et al., and U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090253095 to Salcedo, et al.